Kathleen Parker: President Hillary just might save the world, you know

posted at 7:21 pm on August 14, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via RCP, I think she’s kidding on the square, exaggerating a bit for effect but otherwise legitimately convinced of what she’s saying. Read her column and you’ll see that it boils down to two points. One: A woman president is more likely to bring peace because women are less warlike or something. (“Thus far,” she says of America’s 44 male presidents, “invasions, bunker-busting mega-bombs and killer drones seem not to be having the desired effect.”) That smells more like lazy stereotyping than hard science, but let’s grant that it’s true on average that women are less warlike. Is Hillary “average” in this regard? Her biggest liability on the left in 2008 was her vote for the Iraq war; she later enthusiastically backed O’s intervention in Libya as Secretary of State. She strained repeatedly during the primaries five years ago to get to Obama’s right on using military force, once vowing to “obliterate” Iran if they used nuclear weapons against Israel. Parker herself, for cripes sake, goes on to note that veterans of the famously hawkish Bush administration were pulling for Hillary over Obama because she was “better prepared to handle international challenges.”

If you’re tired of “invasions” and “mega-bombs,” she’s … not the obvious choice. And the irony is, Hillary’s positions on those issues were doubtless driven in part by her recognizing that a woman candidate for the presidency will be viewed more skeptically by some voters as a potential commander-in-chief than a man would, precisely because of the stereotype invoked by Parker here. Women leaders won’t use guns and bombs when necessary, the stereotype goes; they’re too soft, too interested in “dialogue” rather than protecting America’s interests. Hillary’s wisely sensitive to that and has tried to compensate accordingly. She might continue trying to compensate as president, in which case the “women are less warlike” rationale is, to borrow a word, obliterated.

Point two: Even in a column touting her as a potential savior of the world (which I guess is de rigueur for Democratic nominees now), Parker can’t come up with a solid achievement of Hillary’s to tout. Here’s the best she can do by way of actual accomplishments:

Rewinding the tape to 1995 at the U.N.’s Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, then-first lady Hillary Clinton empowered women as never before with just a few words: “Human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights, once and for all.”…

To millions, she is a role model and a warrior for women’s right to self-determination. As secretary of state, she continued the work of predecessors Condoleezza Rice and Madeleine Albright, who first insisted that women’s rights be part of our foreign policy, and then pushed further. Under Hillary’s watch, Obama made permanent the Office of Global Women’s Issues and appointed longtime Hillary colleague Melanne Verveer as ambassador-at-large…

Whether one likes or dislikes Hillary, few dispute that she has matured in her public role. Her résumécan be topped by few and the symbolic power of electing a woman president — especially this woman — can’t be overestimated.

She changed the world for women “as never before” by uttering a bromide about women’s rights at the UN, then continued the work of other secretaries of state in championing women’s rights. And she’s got a great resume. That’s the case for Hillary, world savior, such as it is. What you’re seeing in columns like this, and in the sort of messianism that greeted O in 2008, is identity not only as a substitute for major career achievements but as something actually superior to them. We don’t need someone with a track record of significant civic, business, or military accomplishments; we need someone who, by virtue of the historic nature of their candidacy and their own iconic persona, will somehow save the world purely by attaining power. It was unconvincing five years ago. It’s less convincing now.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

I wholeheartedly agree. Things like the economy and terrorism easily consume the headlines, but our nitwit-PC-feminist public school system will destroy our country with far more certainty than any other reason because its inevitable concomitant is a rock stupid, navel-gazing pack of morons armed with the vote.

“A woman president is more likely to bring peace because women are less warlike or something.”

This is the logic of a 4-year old. Look at Germany and Japan. Warrior cultures? Yup. I’m not saying they’re perfect, or even good. But cultures that do not respect and practice military arts are routinely f-ed over by cultures that do. “It is better to be heartless than mindless. The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless.” Sir Humphrey Appleby. Women aren’t warlike? No, they are very much so. They just suck at it.

If Bob Filner were running against Sarah Palin for President, who do you think Kathleen Parker is going to vote for?

listens2glenn on August 14, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Thread winner

blink on August 15, 2013 at 2:49 AM

Very much agreed! Women like Kathleen Parker, Oprah Winfrey, Hillary Clinton and Hannah Rosen make it very difficult for me to take women seriously. There are days I need to go onto YouTube and get a 45-minute dose of Michelle Malkin just to make the elf in my head stop screaming.

They have had over 3,000 years to save the world. I’m not holding my breath.

I hate to be the one to break the bad news, Snowflake, but every female-dominated society on the planet has gone bye-bye for a reason. Blame Mother Nature: Matriarchies are self-immolating. Biology will beat Sociology like a baby seal every time.

Life is cruel and life is unfair, but “barefoot and pregnant” has kept this species in business for a lot longer than you’ve been voting.

Yep, she’s a role model for women, kept her mouth shut while Bill was turning the WH into a massage parlor, you might say lowering herself by clinging to his coat tails, or his pants when he had them on. She also showed her sound judgement and IQ by going ape and trying to force a total takeover of America’s health care in one massive jump, one massive plan which naturally was a complete disaster. Senator George Mitchell got his hands on it and did a massive rewrite. Helluva example for women, and of course there’s no reublican women to be cited, naturally.
parker is a dumb bunnie, Spitzer ate her lunch and showed her for a fool

Stopped paying attention to PArker some time ago – clearly a good idea.

Women are for more aggressive and angry, and typically over dumber things. Most evil angry nasty species in the world is a teenage girl. I think of Thatcher, Q Eliz, Katherine the Great, Joan of Arc – none of them wilting flowers, and katherine was just plain mean.

Please tell any newspaper that if they are running opeds with Parker as one of their conservative or right voices to cease and desist. She is a progressive statist who also is dumber than a box of rocks.

Margaret Thatcher never went on and on about women’s rights…..if a man stood in her way she smiled then kicked them hard in the crotch…..now there was a very feminine lady who was also a great leader….

Whether one likes or dislikes Hillary, few dispute that she has matured in her public role. Her résumécan be topped by few and the symbolic power of electing a woman president — especially this woman — can’t be overestimated.

By 2016, Hillary Clinton will have been out of office for 4 years (Upchuck Schumer won’t step aside for her in New York), and had previously resigned in disgrace as a former Secretary of State. With all the current turmoil in Egypt and Syria, and the debacle in Libya, what foreign policy successes does she have on her resume?
The “reset” with Russia led nowhere–Putin laughs at us while he milks Ed Snowden for all the information he can get.

When Hillary Clinton ran for President in 2008, she called Obama’s foreign policy “naive and dangerous”, and claimed that her own foreign policy would be more reasonable and forceful. Now her resume is full of Obama’s failed foreign policy, and she has had no effect on domestic policy. What, then, does she run on?

In 1993-94, she tried to set up socialized medicine, but if Obamacare turns out to be the “train wreck” that Max Baucus predicts it will be, would Hillary be the one to fix it? Hardly!

Her own words can then be turned against her: If we vote for Hillary, “in the end, what difference would it make”?

OK…so…Obama was going to save the world. Now Hillary is going to save the world because Obama couldn’t (what a vacuous idea that only a woman can save the world). If Hillary fails to save the world, who will the Democrats shove down our throats next? I wonder if we can resurrect Stalin!

OK…so…Obama was going to save the world. Now Hillary is going to save the world because Obama couldn’t (what a vacuous idea that only a woman can save the world). If Hillary fails to save the world, who will the Democrats shove down our throats next? I wonder if we can resurrect Stalin!

allstonian on August 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM

I don’t know about the world, but if Hillary Clinton ever becomes President our country won’t be salvageable.

Will this idiot come out against rap songs calling women b*tches & hos? Of course not. Because on the lib delusional victimhood-worship-scale, black trumps female.

WhatSlushfund on August 14, 2013 at 7:45 PM

^ This

Why do you think they dug up Mr. “First Clean Articulate Black” to satisfy their historic aspirations. They have been chomping at the bit for generations to get racial minority into the whitehouse now they will surely nominate one every time now that they have seen the success of their results, they will always bring in someone who gets unconditional protection from their minority status.

“If you criticize this President you are a …(pick one) racist/sexist/anti-immigrant/”homophobe”/”Islamophobe”yackety yackety yack !
*spit
*

Isn’t this the same idiocy that the election of a black man would cause other countries to follow suit with peace and rainbows and forget their national interests or other things that lead to conflict.

Bwahahahahaha!!!
Sorry, but I love slapstick.
The only thing better after that very careful drunk-walk up the stairs would have been if the stairs had rolled back a few feet from the plane right before she made it to the top.

If women are so smart, then why was fiscal policy fairly stable before they began getting elected to office at al levels of government?

Babies were safer too.

Sporty1946 on August 16, 2013 at 8:35 AM

Uncomfortable question, but one that needs to be asked.There’s a good reason Democrats target women as a voting bloc – they don’t just pick their voters out of a hat!

They know what they fervently deny and we won’t admit: that women as a whole are emotional creatures who are suckers for anti-man propaganda and “poor widdle children” pap every time we try to cull the herds of welfare queens. Would-be fathers can’t even veto an abortion; she has all the power even if he were to absolve her of all responsibility once the baby was born. How’s THAT for societal destruction?

We gave women the vote and the first major “thank you” to society was an ill-prepared and horribly-executed ban on booze, and after the ‘equality’ movement was over marriage was in shatters even before the perverts came knocking.

I will more than likely catch flack for this but have you noticed that since the 60′s the more that women have gotten into the work force and in politics the worst things have gotten in our country??????